• krayj@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    21
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    The sub-headline of the article claims there is no purpose for “assault weapons” other than killing people.

    each designed with a single purpose — to kill lots of people as fast as possible

    Is this article trying to tell me I’m using mine wrong? Because I use mine only for things that don’t involve killing people.

    • chunkystyles@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      Are you telling me this hammer is built for pounding lots of nails? I only use mine for pulling nails and securing staples that have come loose.

    • Star@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      What do you use it for?

      I think the idea trying to be conveyed is that guns are indeed meant to kill. People use guns for good, like defense, but it is undeniable that the purpose of a gun is to cause death.

      Can you tell me what an assault weapons purpose is that isn’t killing people? Edit: just killing, damage.

      • RaoulDook@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        They are useful for defending a medium sized area, versus pistols which are useful only for defending a small area. They are simply more effective defense machines.

      • krayj@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Hey, you’re right. I also use my butter knife for a lot of things other than butter, such as: brie, jelly, jam, nutella, spreading mayo, cutting my over-easy eggs, etc. Yeah, it turns out it’s useful for a lot more than just butter. It’s almost as if it’s a multipurpose tool that has many different and acceptable uses. I think you’re on to something.

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Interesting philosophical debate. Is it not for whatever I’m using it for, regardless of its designated purpose? If I have a lighter, and someone asks “what’s that thing for,” and I answer “lighting candles,” am I wrong because the bic was designed with tobacco smokers in mind? Would I have to have answered “to expend and ignite butane” to be correct? If I have a bottle of booze and someone asks what for, am I wrong if I say “Tom’s party” instead of “consumption and subsequent expellation?” I say that butter knife is “for opening paint cans.”

        Also, do you have a designated poop paint knife, or do you use a random one every time? If it is designated I’d argue that is yet another reason to say it is for opening paint cans.

        • be_excellent_to_each_other@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          The fact that I have found an alternative purpose for the butter-knife does not satisfy this phrasing from the comment you replied to:

          each designed with a single purpose — to kill lots of people as fast as possible

          My butter-knife was designed to cut and spread soft food that does not require anything sharper to work with. Those guns are designed and marketed to kill.

          By the way, I’m not anti-2A nor anti gun. But I am anti-deflection, among other things. An AR-15 is designed to kill people. Pretending it’s not doesn’t strengthen your position, it makes your argument seem disingenuous.

          • Codilingus@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            An AR-15 is a completely modular rifle platform so that you can build it for your needs. Of which yes, building one for killing people is one. But it is definitely not the only one.

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Oh well my actual argument is “some people need killin’ it’s called self defense.” But I’m more interested in if things are “for” something other than their designation if they’re being used for it and are now designated for it by it’s actual end user.

              • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                For sure no problem. I’m definitely a proponent of the right to self defense, but also a proponent of imbibing on whatever substances please you so long as you don’t hurt others. Substances which may or may not make one interested in pondering on things like fate even concerning inanimate objects, I suppose.